Anonymous donors bring Hollywood production values to anti-MPAA video

Video has been featured on the Pirate Bay, generating 10 million views.

A video accusing the American government of selling out to Hollywood has made a splash after being featured on the front page of the Pirate Bay, where it has garnered over 10 million views. Anti-Hollywood sentiment is nothing new, especially on The Pirate Bay, but what sets this video apart is its top-notch—one might even say Hollywood-caliber—production values.

On Wednesday, Ars talked to an individual behind the video. He said he and a friend paid for the video out of their own pockets. They are hoping to "raise awareness" of what they view as America's repressive copyright policies.

The video has three scenes. In the first, the "American Motion Picture Association" announces it has hired "Senator Chris Rodd"—clearly references to the MPAA and its chairman, former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)—to represent Hollywood. In the second scene, police carry out a military-style raid on a London home. The final scene takes place in an "undisclosed location." The kid arrested in London is now in chains, wearing an orange jumpsuit and a hood over his head. The young soldier guarding the prisoner asks an older American in a suit what the suspect did, and looks incredulous when he's told that he's been arrested for copyright infringement.

Obviously, the video is over the top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make it effective propaganda.

The website associated with the video depicts Kim Dotcom, Richard O'Dwyer, and others as victims of a copyright regime run amok. The site is short on details about who's behind it, providing only an e-mail address.

On Wednesday, Ars spoke to one of the producers, who identified himself as "Andrew," via Skype. He told us he's a financial professional outside the United States. He created the video with a friend who also works "on the stock exchange."

Believing a video would attract a wider audience than a text-based website, they hired a director and a sound professional to produce a 3-minute video. "Andrew" told us the whole video cost about $5000 to produce, and that he and his friend funded the project out of their own pockets. "We really don't have much to do with the Internet industry as a whole," he told us.

If this video is a hit, it could be the first in a series of videos focused on "online freedom and copyright." The next one might be tied to the American elections in November.

Why the secrecy? "You see what's happening with people who are involved in this kind of stuff," "Andrew" told us. "Especially when you're directly attacking against political figures. We don't want to attract unnecessary attention in our lives."

He said he was motivated by the sight of people "getting arrested left and right in different countries for various copyright infringement 'offenses.'" He said that copyright issues "affect pretty much anybody."

63 Reader Comments

A video accusing the American government of selling out to Hollywood has made a splash after being featured on the front page of the Pirate Bay, where it has reportedly garnered over 10 million views.

This is easily verifiable from the Vimeo page for the video. 9.2 million complete plays from 'thepiratebay.se' out of 14 million loads, and 10.1 million complete plays from all embedded sources combined.

A video accusing the American government of selling out to Hollywood has made a splash after being featured on the front page of the Pirate Bay, where it has reportedly garnered over 10 million views.

This is easily verifiable from the Vimeo page for the video. 9.2 million complete plays from 'thepiratebay.se' out of 14 million loads, and 10.1 million complete plays from all embedded sources combined.

Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.

You lost me there. How is what is depicted in the middle segment substantially different than what actually happened to Dotcom? "Not exactly like" is not the same as over the top.

The third segment is the only part that is over the top, and I am of the opinion that if Dotcom had lived in the U.S., the third segment would fairly accurately depict the actual result.

Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.

You lost me there. How is what is depicted in the middle segment substantially different than what actually happened to Dotcom? "Not exactly like" is not the same as over the top.

The third segment is the only part that is over the top, and I am of the opinion that if Dotcom had lived in the U.S., the third segment would fairly accurately depict the actual result.

Right, the first two segments are pretty true-to-life. The third part is over the top.

meh. could have been better... the way to beat these people is not to say " oh copyright infringement is ok" or " the punishments are too strong" people don't sympathize with that. you need to demonize big content for starting a witch hunt that sweeps up innocent people at the tax payers expense. i would imagine a political type add that showed examples of injustices along with the price tag of prosecuting dotcom.. throw in a little bit about how movies contribute very little to the economy and over regulation and such.

Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.

You lost me there. How is what is depicted in the middle segment substantially different than what actually happened to Dotcom? "Not exactly like" is not the same as over the top.

The third segment is the only part that is over the top, and I am of the opinion that if Dotcom had lived in the U.S., the third segment would fairly accurately depict the actual result.

Funny I was just at Disney today and all I could think of was how hypocritical this big content company is. They seek to destroy the public domain and all I could see around me was art and products derived directly from public domain works, which they built the company on.

Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.

You lost me there. How is what is depicted in the middle segment substantially different than what actually happened to Dotcom? "Not exactly like" is not the same as over the top.

The third segment is the only part that is over the top, and I am of the opinion that if Dotcom had lived in the U.S., the third segment would fairly accurately depict the actual result.

Right, the first two segments are pretty true-to-life. The third part is over the top.

Hummm... I am sorry, but what exactly do you think can be labeled as "over the top" in the last segment?What do you think would Richard O'Dwyer's wear if in the hands of the US judicial system?In what condition do you think he would be transported between retention facilities in the US?What in this portrayal of what would happen if he was extradited is factually inaccurate?

"Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists."

It's a crass name for their website, Political Prostitutes, and maybe it's better to not have said that name at all in the article, but it frankly seems very plausible these days. Besides Dodd in the revolving door, you can look at Senator Patrick Leahy, whom we all know and love from the SOPA saga, appearing in FOUR separate Batman productions http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0495004/ . It is impossible for me to believe that the guy who showed such "great" acting chops in the Dark Knight, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w96uPYrkAE (hint, hes not intimidated by thugs!) was given a line and interaction with Joker by coincidence.

Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.

You lost me there. How is what is depicted in the middle segment substantially different than what actually happened to Dotcom? "Not exactly like" is not the same as over the top.

The third segment is the only part that is over the top, and I am of the opinion that if Dotcom had lived in the U.S., the third segment would fairly accurately depict the actual result.

Right, the first two segments are pretty true-to-life. The third part is over the top.

However I have NO ILLUSIONS as to the fact that it is illegal. I'm getting something for free that should have been paid for.

I also pay for Cable TV and I go to the Movie Theater to see the movies I like. So I do try to give back to the market upon which I am stealing.

I understand and agree for the most part with the issues at hand with price, availability and customization with TV and Movie distribution. Hell if XBMC was a distribution model and I could pay a reasonable price for it and what I use it for, then I would in a heart beat. However I have a HUGE issue with people thinking that entertainment should be FREE.

People who believe they should be allowed to download Movies, TV Shows, Music, Programs and Games for free without any form of payment need to wake the fuck up and think about those who create those forms of entertainment we "LOVE" so much.

I truly believe we are in a vicious circle where content creators (and distributers) fight back against pirating instead of investing in new ways of distribution. While pirates continue to do what we do best at getting content for free.

Until this circle is broken, we will find more and more content either disappear or become harder to access for those who do pay. Prices will always continue to increase (that's just a reality of economics) however if systems can be put into place that allow for easy access, customization and customer before profit priority then maybe someday we will be more willing to part with our hard earned cash for the entertainment we love so much.

Kallaide it's not about media being free. It's about how they treat you worse than killer. If you infringe copyright, you are lowest of the lowest, than they sue you for damages(which are not even proven to be real) that will bankrupt your family for generations.

After that, it's about how easily the MAFIAA can influence the US government to do their bidding. The kid from the UK didn't do anything wrong according to their judges, yet the US is still getting him extradited to face charges in America.

Kallaide it's not about media being free. It's about how they treat you worse than killer. If you infringe copyright, you are lowest of the lowest, than they sue you for damages(which are not even proven to be real) that will bankrupt your family for generations.

After that, it's about how easily the MAFIAA can influence the US government to do their bidding. The kid from the UK didn't do anything wrong according to their judges, yet the US is still getting him extradited to face charges in America.

Kallaide it's not about media being free. It's about how they treat you worse than killer. If you infringe copyright, you are lowest of the lowest, than they sue you for damages(which are not even proven to be real) that will bankrupt your family for generations.

After that, it's about how easily the MAFIAA can influence the US government to do their bidding. The kid from the UK didn't do anything wrong according to their judges, yet the US is still getting him extradited to face charges in America.

And all in the name of making bigger and bigger profits for themselves. Not making money for the people who actually make the content: no, it's for the executives and middlemen.

Until this circle is broken, we will find more and more content either disappear or become harder to access for those who do pay. Prices will always continue to increase (that's just a reality of economics)

I don't agree with this.

Imho if prices go up due to Piracy more piracy will occur and the studios will see less revenue until they go bust, there will be a temporary decline in the 'quality' (that's right no more transformer movies or spider man reboots you guys!!!) of films. The things that will then get produced and make money will be lower budget and lower priced and more people will pay for them. People have been seen to contribute money through things like reddit drives and Kickstarter so there is a will to spend, its just the current artistic landscape and pricing structure of major content producers doesn't tap into that.

Imho strangling the media a little to really make them stretch their $,£ etc will lead to more innovative but perhaps less flashy content.

A video accusing the American government of selling out to Hollywood has made a splash after being featured on the front page of the Pirate Bay, where it has reportedly garnered over 10 million views.

This is easily verifiable from the Vimeo page for the video. 9.2 million complete plays from 'thepiratebay.se' out of 14 million loads, and 10.1 million complete plays from all embedded sources combined.

Now it should read, 14,000,001 loads and 10,100,001 complete plays.

I seriously don't think any of that was over the top. The only thing that may not be true is the suited guy answering the soldiers question.

However I have a HUGE issue with people thinking that entertainment should be FREE.

Dude, your a pirate. Please do not think that you are helping the content creators out by arbitrarily paying for content that you like and illegally downloading other content. You are a pirate, be a pirate...pirates don't pay for anything...and if they do, they hold no delusions about what they are doing...

Until this circle is broken, we will find more and more content either disappear or become harder to access for those who do pay. Prices will always continue to increase (that's just a reality of economics)

I don't agree with this.

Imho if prices go up due to Piracy more piracy will occur and the studios will see less revenue until they go bust, there will be a temporary decline in the 'quality' (that's right no more transformer movies or spider man reboots you guys!!!) of films. The things that will then get produced and make money will be lower budget and lower priced and more people will pay for them. People have been seen to contribute money through things like reddit drives and Kickstarter so there is a will to spend, its just the current artistic landscape and pricing structure of major content producers doesn't tap into that.

Imho strangling the media a little to really make them stretch their $,£ etc will lead to more innovative but perhaps less flashy content.

I think that's the problem with Big Content. They only go with "safe" and "established" movie brands...this is why you have 4th and 5th sequels to movies that sucked in the first place. They stopped trying to make really compelling stories at some point and just figured they'd make the $$ if they put in enough explosions and sex. No one wants to see that.

Then they came out with 3D...which is a complete money grab. I have yet to see a really good movie that was done in 3D...

However I have a HUGE issue with people thinking that entertainment should be FREE.

Dude, your a pirate. Please do not think that you are helping the content creators out by arbitrarily paying for content that you like and illegally downloading other content. You are a pirate, be a pirate...pirates don't pay for anything...and if they do, they hold no delusions about what they are doing...

Content creators...is a deceptive term. Just like "job creators". If you don't believe that letting the multimillionaire CEO's pay lower taxes leads to more jobs, don't expect that giving these Record Label CEO's more money will give you more creative content.

When you don't pay for content, you're basically screwing mostly the distributors, not the creators. For example, here's a breakdown of how much revenue an artist earns per song sale (biased for CD Baby but I liked the graphic: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2 ... rn-online/). Basically artists earn 10% or less per sale made. Record companies take 1 to 5 times the amount that the artist earn, and the rest goes into distributing costs.

This is why you see **AA organizations fighting so hard to protect copyright, whereas few artists themselves are as vocal.

However I have a HUGE issue with people thinking that entertainment should be FREE.

Dude, your a pirate. Please do not think that you are helping the content creators out by arbitrarily paying for content that you like and illegally downloading other content. You are a pirate, be a pirate...pirates don't pay for anything...and if they do, they hold no delusions about what they are doing...

Content creators...is a deceptive term. Just like "job creators". If you don't believe that letting the multimillionaire CEO's pay lower taxes leads to more jobs, don't expect that giving these Record Label CEO's more money will give you more creative content.

When you don't pay for content, you're basically screwing mostly the distributors, not the creators. For example, here's a breakdown of how much revenue an artist earns per song sale (biased for CD Baby but I liked the graphic: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2 ... rn-online/). Basically artists earn 10% or less per sale made. Record companies take 1 to 5 times the amount that the artist earn, and the rest goes into distributing costs.

This is why you see **AA organizations fighting so hard to protect copyright, whereas few artists themselves are as vocal.

Yea but here's the thing: The internet has changed the distribution model, artist no longer need big distribution chains to get their content to the consumers. Therefore if the artists only make 10% from their work, its basically their own fault.

Don't get me wrong, I support piracy, if not because 90% of the media in the market is pure crap and I'd like to try before I buy...

However I have a HUGE issue with people thinking that entertainment should be FREE.

Dude, your a pirate. Please do not think that you are helping the content creators out by arbitrarily paying for content that you like and illegally downloading other content. You are a pirate, be a pirate...pirates don't pay for anything...and if they do, they hold no delusions about what they are doing...

So there are no shades of grey in the world, everyone is either Pure Good or Pure Evil, and anyone who pirates some stuff while buying other stuff is either not real or some kind of moron who doesn't understand how the real world works?

Yea but here's the thing: The internet has changed the distribution model, artist no longer need big distribution chains to get their content to the consumers. Therefore if the artists only make 10% from their work, its basically their own fault.

There are a few things wrong with that, though.

The most salient, IMO, is that many artists signed contracts long before internet distribution was in any way practical that, effectively, signed their souls away to the record labels. There's not much they can do about that now.

Even today, no one's going to become a mega-celebrity by releasing their independently-produced album on their band's own website for $10. Granted, almost no one's going to become a mega-celebrity, period, but that's still the big unrealistic dream of many who (as above) sign their souls over to the labels.

Furthermore, what about movies? This isn't even mostly about music. (Heck, the article isn't even at all about music!) If you want to have your movie in theaters around the country, you're not likely to do it by shooting it with your $300 camcorder, editing it with iMovie, and then sending an email to the CEO of Regal. It's not impossible to make money off movies (whether feature-length or otherwise) released online; some even do quite well. However, I'd be quite surprised to see something with that production model that looks as snazzy as your average blockbuster. For that matter, a lot of the ideas people have for movies they want to make are simply impractical to produce with the kind of budget and tools a film-school senior (or recent film-school graduate) has access to. Crowd scenes, big effects, masses of photorealistic CGI—those aren't, by and large, in reach for small independent filmmakers.

The MPAA isn't the only ones they've sold out to; RIAA, big oil, auto industry, any highly polluting industry, the list goes on. The president is just a puppet, the supreme court is a joke, and the real problem lies iin congress. They're the ones being bought, they're the ones passing BS legislation that goes against centuries of law. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves in reaction to what this country has become.

You want to know the really sad thing? We're still the best country in the world. Every other country's economy has either collapsed or is close to doing so, social and political problems greater than our own plague them (Syrian uprising, European bailouts of entire countries).

A quick but hard solution is this:1) Don't Pirate2) Don't buy any kind of media3) Listen, watch, consume only over the air free radio and tv, opensource media4) Remember that each time you buy content, you are empowering people who don't give a damn about your rights or anyone else's for that matter. They are only able to bend the government to their will only if they have the money they get from you.

Three years of this and all the media cartels will fall because of highly reduced income.So its really up to you if you want to make the sacrifice to preserve your rights.You don't violate any laws and at the same time you rebel against the media mafia by depriving them of income coming from you.Make it stop by not giving them your money and at the same time don't pirate.

Prove to them that their content is not as desirable as they think it is and make them think twice about violating our rights with impunity.

Yea but here's the thing: The internet has changed the distribution model, artist no longer need big distribution chains to get their content to the consumers. Therefore if the artists only make 10% from their work, its basically their own fault.

There are a few things wrong with that, though.

The most salient, IMO, is that many artists signed contracts long before internet distribution was in any way practical that, effectively, signed their souls away to the record labels. There's not much they can do about that now.

Even today, no one's going to become a mega-celebrity by releasing their independently-produced album on their band's own website for $10. Granted, almost no one's going to become a mega-celebrity, period, but that's still the big unrealistic dream of many who (as above) sign their souls over to the labels.

Furthermore, what about movies? This isn't even mostly about music. (Heck, the article isn't even at all about music!) If you want to have your movie in theaters around the country, you're not likely to do it by shooting it with your $300 camcorder, editing it with iMovie, and then sending an email to the CEO of Regal. It's not impossible to make money off movies (whether feature-length or otherwise) released online; some even do quite well. However, I'd be quite surprised to see something with that production model that looks as snazzy as your average blockbuster. For that matter, a lot of the ideas people have for movies they want to make are simply impractical to produce with the kind of budget and tools a film-school senior (or recent film-school graduate) has access to. Crowd scenes, big effects, masses of photorealistic CGI—those aren't, by and large, in reach for small independent filmmakers.

Sure, I agree that a lot of movies need the money that they raise.

But then we devolve back into the original argument of piracy: does pirating material imply a lost sale?

Here's a list of the top 10 most pirated movies of the week of July 30th;

You can anticipat some of the movies, but some of them come out of nowhere. So you have to wonder if some of these movies were torrented because people wouldn't have seen it if they paid for it anyways?

And then there are people who pirate as well as pay. For me and my friends, going to the movies is a fairly social event. We're not gonna go to the theater or buy a DVD if we're only going to watch it by ourselves. My friend actually takes pride in admitting that they torrented The Avengers movie (Camcorder) because it leaked out before the theaters displayed them. He then went and paid to see the movie twice; once with his family and once with us.

I understand anecdotal evidence is pretty crappy. But the numbers for and against this claim are pretty vague and crappy as well.

Three years of this and all the media cartels will fall because of highly reduced income.So its really up to you if you want to make the sacrifice to preserve your rights.You don't violate any laws and at the same time you rebel against the media mafia by depriving them of income coming from you.Make it stop by not giving them your money and at the same time don't pirate.

It would be nice if we geeks were enough to make a difference through a boycott of that kind.

Regrettably, we are not. We will need to convince a huge proportion of mainstream consumers to join us in this before it will make enough of a dent that they don't just say, "Look! It's losses due to piracy! We need to step up enforcement even more!"

Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists. But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.

Add in the situation with the british college student and it gets even closer to the truth.

Give it time - the MPAA will start going after anyone that actually views a "performance" as a copyright violator.

[extreme example] IF they catch you walking by a club where the door it propped open and you hear the music coming from inside - you are now in violation of copyright infringement and they will [try to} prosecute you.